Few will argue with the fact that one of the only ways to eliminate distracted driving is to completely remove the driver from the equation. This is in part what automated, driverless vehicles -- such as the fleet that Google is operating around the country -- promise. The cars are expected to be safer because distracted drivers will no longer be an issue. Google's driverless fleet has racked up 300,000 accident-free miles.

Driverless vehicles can also allow those who were unable to drive themselves to get around without having to seek assistance. Other than making the roads safer, driverless cars also promise to decrease congestion and delays on the nation's roadways by eliminating accidents.

California is making moves to get these driverless vehicles on its state roads with one California legislator introducing a bill seeking to clarify that driverless cars are street legal. Google continues to be one of the major driving forces behind driverless vehicles, although there are other companies working in the industry.

Google believes that it has the computer science knowledge and financial strength to bring driverless cars to reality for Americans. "It's amazing to me that we (even) let humans drive cars," Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said a few years ago.

A lot of the technology needed for driverless vehicles is already available, and some vehicles on the streets today have many of the components needed to make this feat possible. Industry Association Auto Alliance represents Toyota, Ford, GM, BMW, and other major automakers. According to Auto Alliance, its members are individually exploring autonomous vehicle technology, and the association says that great strides have been made in the past decade.

Ford and GM, for instance, are working on autonomous braking technology that allows the car to bring itself to a complete stop when radar and other sensors the vehicle use sense an impending accident.

While some state legislators in California are trying to get the vehicles legalized for road use within the state, other states such as Nevada already allow driverless cars to operate on its roads.

quote: With an automated vehicle, you're still in control of what the car ultimately does. You just have a level of abstraction between yourself and the mundane specifics of driving. There will almost certainly still be places to drive manually as well, it just might not be on public roads.

While you're taking away his ability to drive his car, can I take away his ability to play sports? There are numerous other ways to stay in shape and I don't want his irresponsible love for playing sports to affect the health insurance premiums of everyone else. If he breaks his ankle or suffers emotional pain while playing one of his sports then everyone else has to pay for it, raising their rates. I, for one don't want the irresponsible acts of the few to impact the needs of the many, even if that does mean taking away his rights.

I loved that you picked sports to support this argument as sports is something that you cannot do whenever and wherever you like. There are designated areas and places where it would be illegal or impossible to start a game of softball. Likewise, there will be plenty of places for you to vroom vroom in your car but it won't be on a public highways where robots are driving. Robots cannot possibly account for the infinite stupidity of human beings.

Further, you don't have a right to drive, it's a privilege. We restrict that privilege for all sorts of mundane reasons but simultaneously decongesting highways, reducing fuel expenditures, and reducing traffic related injuries and fatalities is an outrageous affront to your personal liberties? Give me a break. You guys are silly.

We have that statement beat into us from day one at the DMV, but I really have to call BS on that.

The fact is that vast majority of us would find not being able to drive more than an inconvenience. I would be out of job and I bet that more than 50% of America would be in the same situation if survey was given. I don't doubt that at point in time many many years ago, that wasn't true, however given that my livelyhood and "pursuit of happiness" is at stake, then I would call it a right.Our lawmaking overlords would rather it be called a privilege, so that you have no ground to stand on if you get caught going 8 over and they want your contribution to state police retirement fund. Bottom line is our society in vast majority of America has been reshaped over the last 50 years to require a car pursue a productive life. Anything less is a severe handicap.

As far as the rest of your rambling: I guess I wouldn't want to be a small business owner that pays for a group health plan and has an employee that's constantly breaking his leg. That would suck. It would also suck for the other employees because their costs would go up. Again, not generally going to be a legal issue. If you do something sufficiently negligent, I think there are provisions in some health care plans to not cover you at all. Beyond that... keep pounding away with the obtuse sports and health analogies.